Harindra Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22147 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2020 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Harindra Ray, aged about 32 years, male, S/o Upendra Ray. 2.

Maksudan Ray, aged about 32 years, male, S/o Late Bujhawan Ray. 3.

Yogendra Ray, aged about 28 years, male, S/o Late Bujhawan Ray. 4.

Satendra Ray @ Bhulla Ray, aged about 25 years, male, S/o Upendra Ray. 5.

Chhotu Ray @ Chhotu Kumar, aged about 25 years, male, S/o Ravindra Ray.

6.

Damodar Ray, aged about 42 years, male, S/o Late Bujhawan Ray. All are R/o Village- Nauachak, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Md. Hussamuddin Azad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2022 The application with respect to petitioner Nos. 4 and 6 has earlier been dismissed as withdrawn as they were arrested.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, namely,

2/4 Harindra Ray, Maksudan Ray, Yogendra Ray and Chhotu Ray @ Chhotu Kumar seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 150 of 2020, dated 26.09.2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The son of the informant was found hanging dead from a tree in a Lichi orchard. The informant has suspected the hands of the petitioners, because in the past, they had threatened him that his son would be killed.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the reason for falsely implicating them in this case is not far to seek. A public protest had been made by the villagers including the petitioners about a government road being constructed on the Gair Mazarua land, which was illegally occupied by the informant. This was the reason of the annoyance of the informant with the petitioners.

During the course of investigation, even the

3/4 wife of the deceased and other villagers have not supported the accusation against the petitioners. In fact, the statement made by the witnesses indicate that because of some dispute between the deceased and his wife, the deceased committed suicide. Similar statements have been made by other witnesses as well. including false implication of the petitioners because of past enmity.

Except for the unfounded suspicion of the informant, it has been argued, there is no other material to connect the petitioners with the offence. Considering the afore-noted aspects of the matter, this Court had granted provisional bail to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, on 12.01.2022. Taking into account the above-noted facts, the provisional bail, referred to above, granted to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, namely, Harindra Ray, Maksudan Ray, Yogendra Ray and Chhotu Ray @ Chhotu Kumar is, hereby, confirmed. They shall remain on the same bail-bonds.

4/4 The application stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T